Pelican Parts
Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   Pelican Parts Forums > Porsche Forums > 911 Engine Rebuilding Forum


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread    Reply
Registered User
 
Discseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Miami, FL USA
Posts: 3,151
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTL View Post
And keep in mind the rifle drilling through the rod beam is not the only FPL method. Though it is the only place you're going to get actual pressurized oil, from the rod journal, and that also begs the question of whether it's worth it to steal precious oil pressure from the rod bearings.

JE has a nice page that shows various pin oiling options they have and they're all splash oiling. Different Wrist Pin Oiling Styles Explained But keep in mind that pistons also have a squirt of oil directed at them. Some use notches in the rod thrust surfaces to direct a squirt of oil at the underside of the piston. Of course our engines have the dedicated jets in the engine case that squirt the piston.

Speaking of squirters, if you're going up in size on the piston squirters? You may need to consider a larger oil pump since those squirters are going to steal some volume from your crankshaft oil. Going by memory here:

Typical 3.2 Carrera pump = 1.5mm squirter jet
930 pump = 2.0mm jet
964/993 = 2.5mm jet

I don't know off the top of my head what size jet is used with the holy grail GT3 pump. But its delivery rate on the pressure side is in excess of the 930 and 964/993 pump so I have to assume the GT3 squirters are also large.

There's also the argument of reduced cam housing oil delivery (the infamous reduced orifice diameter within the camshaft & rocker banjo base/fitting) which in turn sends more oil to the bottom end of the engine and reduces the need for a larger pump. The argument is, is it truly advisable to take away oil volume from the top of the engine? Heads are the part of the engine that need the most cooling (and fan air is the primary means of cooling) but any help provided by oil is certainly welcomed?

Just confirmed with Pauter---they'll rifle custom rods for this build. Am researching force of rod movement to see if there's any reason to avoid passing oil through inside of rod. No conclusion yet.

Looked through JE ref/link you provided/TY Kev. Those pin lube solutions are now included on piston design sheet. Idea for FPL via inside of rod is to deliver pressurized oil directly to bushed pin area. Pauter mentioned placing circumferential groove in bushing at feed point in order to reservoir oil in bushing. I've read info about hatching bushings and journals for directional oil control. More research needed. Cross drilling main and obviously drilling journals is planned.

Provided riffled FPL is done, and given your input, plan now is to up squirter to 1.5mm rather than 2mm. And swap existing oil pump for larger unit---appreciate specifics on squirters and pumps. Adding oil passages and changing squirters obviously alters oil flow dynamics. Adding oil pressure sensors along with ability to---after all's said & done---adjust and set (balance) oil distribution throughout engine is now obligatory. Where sensor and control points would be need to be determined.

Custom piston and rod solutions are heading in positive direction. No obstacles encountered yet. Budget remains in order. Having gotten immersed in rod and piston research, zero progress has been made concerning EFI (Megasquirt) over the last few days.
__________________
Karl ~

Current: '80 Silver Targa w /'85 3.2
Prior: '77 Copper 924. '73 Black 914. '74 White Carrera. '79 Silver 930. '79 Black 930. '79 Anthracite 930.
Old 12-18-2018, 01:43 PM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #41 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Discseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Miami, FL USA
Posts: 3,151
Garage
Carillo does bore rods for FPL. Called Carillo... is $90 surcharge per rod. With build-plan being to use minimum mass rods, placing this oil channel requires mass to be added back into rod to accommodate bore. Estimate is +30-35 gms per rod.

__________________
Karl ~

Current: '80 Silver Targa w /'85 3.2
Prior: '77 Copper 924. '73 Black 914. '74 White Carrera. '79 Silver 930. '79 Black 930. '79 Anthracite 930.

Last edited by Discseven; 01-13-2019 at 08:24 AM.. Reason: Cost and +mass notes included
Old 12-18-2018, 02:38 PM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #42 (permalink)
Registered User
 
911 tweaks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: northeast
Posts: 3,974
I wonder if the fpl hole can get gummed up and or blocked from oil used “too long” or will the oil pressure keep the hole open...?
This goes for other small bores, holes ect in the oil system...
Q: Should a min and max bore/hole size be spec’d to prevent such?
What is the bore/hole size for flp, cam spray bar, chosen case squirters, crankshaft, are the camshafts being drilled, what about the other oil passage/bores/holes sizes...?
Q: what happens when the external oil thermostat opens to circulate oil to a front oil cooler...? Does the pressure drop to a level that jeopardizes the other oil areas?
Just a point to consider as this research gets deeper and deeper...
__________________
I live for 911 tweaks...
Old 12-18-2018, 04:07 PM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #43 (permalink)
Registered User
 
911 tweaks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: northeast
Posts: 3,974
Need to find out how the new 2018 GT3 engines have this spec’d for reference... Jmho
__________________
I live for 911 tweaks...
Old 12-18-2018, 04:10 PM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #44 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Discseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Miami, FL USA
Posts: 3,151
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by 911 tweaks View Post
I wonder if the fpl hole can get gummed up and or blocked from oil used “too long” or will the oil pressure keep the hole open...?
This goes for other small bores, holes ect in the oil system...
Q: Should a min and max bore/hole size be spec’d to prevent such?
What is the bore/hole size for flp, cam spray bar, chosen case squirters, crankshaft, are the camshafts being drilled, what about the other oil passage/bores/holes sizes...?
Q: what happens when the external oil thermostat opens to circulate oil to a front oil cooler...? Does the pressure drop to a level that jeopardizes the other oil areas?
Just a point to consider as this research gets deeper and deeper...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 911 tweaks View Post
Need to find out how the new 2018 GT3 engines have this spec’d for reference... Jmho
Nice thinking Tweaks. Establishes 2,500 mile oil & filt change regime. If FPL bore in rod gets plugged, pin will still have standard lube processes in effect. Will question Carillo about what bore size they recommend for this particular application. If they ask what pin's surface is... that's not determined yet. Am also curious as to what bushing material they like. Thanks for input!

Not seeing squirters here
Credit to Doug/"2.7Racer" for posting this diagram.

.
__________________
Karl ~

Current: '80 Silver Targa w /'85 3.2
Prior: '77 Copper 924. '73 Black 914. '74 White Carrera. '79 Silver 930. '79 Black 930. '79 Anthracite 930.

Last edited by Discseven; 12-19-2018 at 07:35 AM.. Reason: Not seeing squirters
Old 12-19-2018, 04:51 AM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #45 (permalink)
KTL KTL is offline
Schleprock
 
KTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Frankfort IL USA
Posts: 16,027
Send a message via Yahoo to KTL
Make sure you decide which route you want to go with the crank with respect to cross drilling and the #4 bearing. Some like to groove the bearing, some like to groove the crank. Marine chose to groove the crank in my instance.

Marine also removes all of the aluminum plugs and replaces them with steel set screws. This allows you to clean the crank before you install it (Marine specifically said they don't finish-clean it for liability reasons) and clean it in the future.

Also make sure you enlarge the #4 main web oil feed hole in the engine case all the way back to the oil gallery. You need to enlarge this oil feed hole in order to ensure sufficient oil feeds the #4 main bearing because you're taking some oil away from that bearing and delivering it elsewhere. The whole purpose of the cross drilling is to provide a more direct path to the #2 and #5 rod journals via the #4 main oil feed and you don't want to starve the #4 bearing by "stealing" oil from it. In the original state, the crank has #2 and #5 rods as the last journals to get oil because the crank is fed from the ends and moves inward from there. You of course also need to enlarge the oil hole in the bearing shell too!!

Here's a nice topic on the cross drilling and I made a crude image/map to show how the oil moves in and out of the crank Another crank cross drill question


The oiling holes in the FPL rods are relatively large. If one of those holes gets clogged up, you've got much bigger problems going on and the engine is well on its way to being damaged. For reference, the smallest oiling hole in the engine is the camshaft/rocker/valve spring spray bar and it is literally a pinhole size.

If you're going to change squirters, Catorce here on the forums has manufactured a nice serviceable squirter. https://taormina-racing.myshopify.com/

The squirters are not shown in that diagram you posted because the way they're fed oil is a little bit complicated. Here's a clearer three dimensional image and it still doesn't show the squirters. This image may be too early, before the squirters were introduced




The squirters receive oil via the main oil gallery by intersecting some of the main bearing oil passages. Some also intersect the case through-bolt bores! Incidentally last month a forum member asked me about the through bolt holes (which holes see oil pressure) and I had to take a look at one of my cases to refresh my memory. So I decided to make a sketch that to identifies which through bolt holes receive oil and what they're connected to. Basically all of the lower through-bolt holes are "dry" except for one.




__________________
Kevin L
Present: '86 Carrera, '79 911SC widebody conversion rolling racecar shell
Past: '87 Carrera
Old 12-19-2018, 09:47 AM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #46 (permalink)
 
Registered User
 
911 tweaks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: northeast
Posts: 3,974
nice Kevin... MEGA IMPORTANT info you shared here on oil system...
__________________
I live for 911 tweaks...
Old 12-19-2018, 10:01 AM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #47 (permalink)
Registered User
 
smokintr6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 680
Send a message via AIM to smokintr6
The crank and rods in a 3.2 are totally up to spec for a naturally aspirated engine. I would have a machine shop blueprint the stock engine to perfect stock tolerances, rebuild with Mahle pistons, and Porsche brand engine bearings. If I really wanted to invest, I would consider having an ATI damper made for the engine, and call it a day. There is no return on investment on the other items if you aren't building for power. What are the normal failure modes for a 3.2 Carrera? Valve guide wear, Piston / cylinder wear, broken head studs, cam chains / tensioners, rocker shaft leaks. Improvements in those areas might be a win... but you certainly do not need to be looking at crank work and rods. You're more likely to introduce a stress riser than to achieve anything meaningful.
Old 12-19-2018, 12:22 PM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #48 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokintr6 View Post
The crank and rods in a 3.2 are totally up to spec for a naturally aspirated engine. I would have a machine shop blueprint the stock engine to perfect stock tolerances, rebuild with Mahle pistons, and Porsche brand engine bearings. If I really wanted to invest, I would consider having an ATI damper made for the engine, and call it a day. There is no return on investment on the other items if you aren't building for power. What are the normal failure modes for a 3.2 Carrera? Valve guide wear, Piston / cylinder wear, broken head studs, cam chains / tensioners, rocker shaft leaks. Improvements in those areas might be a win... but you certainly do not need to be looking at crank work and rods. You're more likely to introduce a stress riser than to achieve anything meaningful.
Couldn't agree more. I'm a firm believer of "if it isn't broken..."

Some people just like to throw money away
__________________
1971 911T Irish Green Coupe
Old 12-19-2018, 01:58 PM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #49 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokintr6 View Post
The crank and rods in a 3.2 are totally up to spec for a naturally aspirated engine. I would have a machine shop blueprint the stock engine to perfect stock tolerances, rebuild with Mahle pistons, and Porsche brand engine bearings. If I really wanted to invest, I would consider having an ATI damper made for the engine, and call it a day. There is no return on investment on the other items if you aren't building for power. What are the normal failure modes for a 3.2 Carrera? Valve guide wear, Piston / cylinder wear, broken head studs, cam chains / tensioners, rocker shaft leaks. Improvements in those areas might be a win... but you certainly do not need to be looking at crank work and rods. You're more likely to introduce a stress riser than to achieve anything meaningful.
Seems it has run off the tracks some. A lot of what is talked about will not add to the engines running efficiency. Some of what is being talked about should only be done if the engines shows sighs of wear and damage.

If I can give some additional advice, maybe go about this in a more analytical manner.

You can calculate the theoretical horsepower the engine should make from the calorific value of the fuel used. Then you calculate all of the MEP's, pumping losses, frictional losses, etc. What you should then work on, are the HP numbers between the ideal and the actual. You will soon see where you need to give the most attention too.
Old 12-19-2018, 05:16 PM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #50 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Discseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Miami, FL USA
Posts: 3,151
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTL View Post
Make sure you decide which route you want to go with the crank with respect to cross drilling and the #4 bearing. Some like to groove the bearing, some like to groove the crank. Marine chose to groove the crank in my instance.

Marine also removes all of the aluminum plugs and replaces them with steel set screws. This allows you to clean the crank before you install it (Marine specifically said they don't finish-clean it for liability reasons) and clean it in the future.

Also make sure you enlarge the #4 main web oil feed hole in the engine case all the way back to the oil gallery. You need to enlarge this oil feed hole in order to ensure sufficient oil feeds the #4 main bearing because you're taking some oil away from that bearing and delivering it elsewhere. The whole purpose of the cross drilling is to provide a more direct path to the #2 and #5 rod journals via the #4 main oil feed and you don't want to starve the #4 bearing by "stealing" oil from it. In the original state, the crank has #2 and #5 rods as the last journals to get oil because the crank is fed from the ends and moves inward from there. You of course also need to enlarge the oil hole in the bearing shell too!!

Here's a nice topic on the cross drilling and I made a crude image/map to show how the oil moves in and out of the crank Another crank cross drill question

The oiling holes in the FPL rods are relatively large. If one of those holes gets clogged up, you've got much bigger problems going on and the engine is well on its way to being damaged. For reference, the smallest oiling hole in the engine is the camshaft/rocker/valve spring spray bar and it is literally a pinhole size.

If you're going to change squirters, Catorce here on the forums has manufactured a nice serviceable squirter. https://taormina-racing.myshopify.com/

The squirters are not shown in that diagram you posted because the way they're fed oil is a little bit complicated.

The squirters receive oil via the main oil gallery by intersecting some of the main bearing oil passages. Some also intersect the case through-bolt bores! Incidentally last month a forum member asked me about the through bolt holes (which holes see oil pressure) and I had to take a look at one of my cases to refresh my memory. So I decided to make a sketch that to identifies which through bolt holes receive oil and what they're connected to. Basically all of the lower through-bolt holes are "dry" except for one.
Your very detailed input and thread links are MUCH appreciated Kev. Enlightening.

Your do notes:
Decide on cross-drill
Grove crank
Steel set screws replace aluminum plugs
Enlarge #4 oil feed back to gallery
Enlarge #4 journal bearing hole
Your warnings:
If rod's FPL gets clogged, engine's on way to damage (My note: Plan is not to eliminate standard lubrication for pin. FPL is addition.
Your parts input:
Rebuildable squirter - Taormina offers standard and oversize
Your visual ref:







Idea of easy access into crank... is that because you're in there quite often?



Quote:
Originally Posted by smokintr6 View Post
The crank and rods in a 3.2 are totally up to spec for a naturally aspirated engine. I would have a machine shop blueprint the stock engine to perfect stock tolerances, rebuild with Mahle pistons, and Porsche brand engine bearings. If I really wanted to invest, I would consider having an ATI damper made for the engine, and call it a day. There is no return on investment on the other items if you aren't building for power. What are the normal failure modes for a 3.2 Carrera? Valve guide wear, Piston / cylinder wear, broken head studs, cam chains / tensioners, rocker shaft leaks. Improvements in those areas might be a win... but you certainly do not need to be looking at crank work and rods. You're more likely to introduce a stress riser than to achieve anything meaningful.
3.2 in stock form is exceptional engine---fully agree with you Smokin. No need to change anything. I could do a stock build. Doesn't interest me. (I've done that with my 930's 3.3.) What's important now (to me) is exploring new & different ideas, materials, processes, techniques as well as myself. Happens to be I've chosen my 3.2 for this journey. Liken it to a mountain climb---makes no sense to some and ultimate sense to others.

ATI dampening is a great example of WTF this thread is about. Something new, at least for me. If this adds to engine's happiness, and I suspect it does from quick research I've just done, by default it's a consideration for incorporating. Thanks for input!



Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastianroher View Post
Some people just like to throw money away
Good thinking Sebastian... we'll have none of that in this build.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Harvey View Post
Seems it has run off the tracks some. A lot of what is talked about will not add to the engines running efficiency. Some of what is being talked about should only be done if the engines shows sighs of wear and damage.

If I can give some additional advice, maybe go about this in a more analytical manner.

You can calculate the theoretical horsepower the engine should make from the calorific value of the fuel used. Then you calculate all of the MEP's, pumping losses, frictional losses, etc. What you should then work on, are the HP numbers between the ideal and the actual. You will soon see where you need to give the most attention too.
Disagree with you here Neil. Mass/weight reduction of reciprocating parts, added lubrication to non-lubricated high stress areas, improved tolerances & balancing, improved aspiration & combustion... as I see it, these are fundamentally associated with IC engine efficiency. If you or anyone sees it differently, school me pls.

Appreciate your analytical approach Neil... oddly perhaps, +++HP is notably NOT a requisite for this build. Taking 3.2 platform and making engine operate smoother is. Whatever HP gains are had from this are a bonus. Journey taken here is to uncover opportunities (left on table by Porsche) to improve engine's durability and operating performance. In no way am I critical of 3.2 in stock form. It's a great engine AS IS imho! (My premise: Porsche---any manufacturer that wants to be profitable---can only go so far with product creation based on price point their selling their product at. By default, there's usually room for improvement. It's a time & money limit equasion.)

.
__________________
Karl ~

Current: '80 Silver Targa w /'85 3.2
Prior: '77 Copper 924. '73 Black 914. '74 White Carrera. '79 Silver 930. '79 Black 930. '79 Anthracite 930.

Last edited by Discseven; 12-22-2018 at 05:13 AM..
Old 12-20-2018, 05:55 AM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #51 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Discseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Miami, FL USA
Posts: 3,151
Garage
Anyone experienced with Brisk or NKG surface gap plugs?



__________________
Karl ~

Current: '80 Silver Targa w /'85 3.2
Prior: '77 Copper 924. '73 Black 914. '74 White Carrera. '79 Silver 930. '79 Black 930. '79 Anthracite 930.
Old 12-22-2018, 04:53 AM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #52 (permalink)
KTL KTL is offline
Schleprock
 
KTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Frankfort IL USA
Posts: 16,027
Send a message via Yahoo to KTL
Mike Bruns could tell you about those surface gap plugs. I recall he used a somewhat similar plug (Champion C57A) in a forum member's engine.

Check Gertvr's build here and some of his other threads. Gert’s Engine Rebuild & Upgrade (Chasing 300Hp, yes another one sorry)

Gert did some really good work in building/designing his engine and the dyno results proved it.

Regarding the crank plugs, I think Marine does it just for ease of cleaning in the future. Sure the customer can easily clean it when it's returned back from service w/out the original style of plug in place. But then you have to tap new plugs in place. In terms of future cleaning, the original aluminum plugs are pressed in and therefore require you to drill and tap them to pull them out. With the steel set screws, you use thread locking compound to retain them and they are easy to remove in the future with a hex key. Clean the threads with an appropriate thread chaser, clean out any threadlocker remnants, reinstall set screws.

I myself didn't expect that I would be in there often cleaning it. My engine was intended to be a mild build and last a lot of hours, not requiring frequent refreshing. The threaded crank plugs is a nice feature Marine provides if you request it and I don't recall it being an expensive service either.
__________________
Kevin L
Present: '86 Carrera, '79 911SC widebody conversion rolling racecar shell
Past: '87 Carrera

Last edited by KTL; 01-03-2019 at 08:53 AM.. Reason: added response about crank oil passage plugs
Old 01-03-2019, 08:45 AM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #53 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Discseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Miami, FL USA
Posts: 3,151
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTL View Post
Mike Bruns could tell you about those surface gap plugs. I recall he used a somewhat similar plug (Champion C57A) in a forum member's engine.

Check Gertvr's build here and some of his other threads. Gert’s Engine Rebuild & Upgrade (Chasing 300Hp, yes another one sorry)

Gert did some really good work in building/designing his engine and the dyno results proved it.

Regarding the crank plugs, I think Marine does it just for ease of cleaning in the future. Sure the customer can easily clean it when it's returned back from service w/out the original style of plug in place. But then you have to tap new plugs in place. In terms of future cleaning, the original aluminum plugs are pressed in and therefore require you to drill and tap them to pull them out. With the steel set screws, you use thread locking compound to retain them and they are easy to remove in the future with a hex key. Clean the threads with an appropriate thread chaser, clean out any threadlocker remnants, reinstall set screws.

I myself didn't expect that I would be in there often cleaning it. My engine was intended to be a mild build and last a lot of hours, not requiring frequent refreshing. The threaded crank plugs is a nice feature Marine provides if you request it and I don't recall it being an expensive service either.
Thanks for input on Mike's plug use---saw that in Gert's thread along with JB Racing's participation. JB is on tomorrow's call list. Among other matters, will talk dyno cost with them. Crank plug is fascinating Kev. Am going to leave a note for my Son on this (as he'll eventually get this car---unless I get into an M491. Which I imagine he'd not mind getting either.)

Gert, if you happen to read this... fine work on your build. Am posting your end-specs for ref. Thanks for detailed documentary you posted.
Here Goes:

Short Block:

Sonic cleaned, and cleaned the case halves what feels like 100 times

1. Cross drilled Crankshaft
2. Porsche Main bearing set (.003" Clearance)
3. Pauter 4340 Rods
4. Porsche 996 GT3 R Rod bearings (.0028" Clearance)
5. JB Racing Straight Cut Steel lay shaft gear set.
6. Upgrade to clock wise rotation on the distributor drive gear
7. Sleeve main bearing webs and enlarge #4 oil supply port
8. Modify case to accept GT3 Oil pump
9. DYI boat tailing
10. Replace Oil squirters with removable ones
11. All new timing chains and sprockets (Porsche)
12. SuperTec Head stud kit
13. GT3 Oil pump
14. New Oil pressure relief springs and pistons
15. Modify oil pressure switch adapter to accept -4AN oil feed line to mechanical pressure gauge
16. Under-drive crank shaft pulley from SuperTec

Cylinders & Pistons:
1. Cylinders bored and replated by US Chrome back to stock (95mm)
2. JE 11.7:1 Pistons made according to JB Racing Spec
3. Goetze Piston Rings

Heads, Cam & Cam Towers
1. Upgrade to threaded spary-bar plugs
2. Elgin 316/294-106 Cam
3. Adjustable timing gears
4. Solid cam chain tensioners
5. Upgraded to later style idler arms with extended copper busing
6. Oversize valves 52mm Inlet 42.5mm Exh on 8mm valve stems.
7. Gasflowed by Xtreme Cyl heads with special exhaust ports
8. Twin Plug
9. Elgin Racing valve springs with Ti retainers
10. Head dome volume 86cc

Carburetors and Ignition
1. JB Racing CW twin plug distributor
2. 2 MSD blaster anti-vibration coils
3. 2 MSD CDI Ignition boxes with soft rev limiters
4. PMO 50 mm Carbs with 45mm venturies
5. 2 K&N Water shield air filters
6. Timing set to 30 deg @5K Rpm

Exhaust and mufflers
1. Bursch style header 26.5” x 1.75” OD primaries
2. 1.75” to 2” Burns SS merge collectors
3. 2.5” Flowmaster Deltaflow ser10 mufflers
4. 2” – 3” Reverse cone megaphones

I think that is about it.
While Gert's build hunted HP for his racing interests, I think there's applicable aspects for an endurance build (as is my interest.) My status... am still tweaking plan/budget but almost ready to get on with it. Last major hurdle... sorting out work space. I've looked into local derelict warehouse space in Miami's downtown. Very convenient---can take train, bike or even walk... great location! Security is generally terrible. Risk of walking in to no engine & tools... very tangible. Passing on that plan. Another idea is to rent 20 x 8 x 8 storage pod/container. Am still stuck with needing space to land it for a few months. Am eager to solve this puzzle as it'd be nice to get on with this while cool temps exist. Will visit a few places tomorrow in this regard.
__________________
Karl ~

Current: '80 Silver Targa w /'85 3.2
Prior: '77 Copper 924. '73 Black 914. '74 White Carrera. '79 Silver 930. '79 Black 930. '79 Anthracite 930.
Old 01-06-2019, 08:28 AM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #54 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 312
Karl,

It's Ok to disagree. Maybe I have misunderstood what you are trying to achieve. But there seems to be some odd ideas mixed in with some good ones.

The idea of pin oiling up through the rod beam is a good one, but it is done typically for some specific reasons. One is, the pin does not run in a bushing and or the pin shows signs of galling. In your case I see it doing nothing, but costing you a lot more money. Normally, before this is done, the clearance between the pin and bushing is increased, the pin OD and or wall thickness is increased, if the pin was bending. Will it help lubricate the pin better, sure it will, but will it lower any friction with the added oiling. If there is no issue with galling now, I suspect almost zero change. DLC the pins will help here.

You have also asked about using surface gap spark plugs. Again, it seems you have found these to be an attractive choice because they maybe different, but understand their use too. Typically, they are used in highly boosted engines with very close piston to plug clearances. In a 2V Porsche engine with huge chamber volumes and cantered plugs, they should be last choice of plug to use. These also run the coldest with the center electrode pulled all the way back into the shell. It takes a lot of energy to fire these compared to a standard firing end plug, and the throttle response always suffers with these plugs. They are designed for a specific use and your application is probably not it.

My suggestion to take a more analytical approach, is one that will show you where to focus your attention. Not just about torque production, but where you can raise the efficiencies lost in just turning the engine over. You can separate all the losses into their own categories and soon see where you are losing power.

It’s an easy mathematical exercise to calculate the HP the fuel used can produce. This is where the chemical potential turns into a theorical mechanical HP number. Now you can subtract all the losses and come up with what the actual “net” performance could be.

I won’t use the actual numbers here (don't know your fuel type etc,) but will use some plug numbers to give you some idea of what I am suggesting.

These engines are not the best engines for efficiency either. They make approximately 30% of what their total efficiency could be due to old age and design.

Consider your engine as 6 individual cylinders. I know for sure that these engines, street or the most modified race version do not produce the same torque in each cylinder. This is due to maldistribution in the Intake system, thermal issues with the #2 and #5 cylinders “siamesed” between the other end cylinders, among many other factors. These engines have a distributor typically and the spark timing is adjusted and sent to each cylinder at the same crankshaft degree. This is what can be said to be, global timing.

In your case unless you are using some sort of individual Ignition timing per cylinder, say your total timing advance may be set at 32 degrees. But the end cylinders may make their peak power at 28 degrees. Not every cylinder will make its best torque at 32 degrees. So here is your first loss of performance. Should you stick with the distributor or go with some sort of EFI system?

You are not hot rodding your engine here, just making it more efficient. Is this not the task at hand? But you will need to measure the cylinder pressure in each cylinder at a measured crank angle and calculate the torque based upon the pressure and subtract 1/6 of the frictional losses to obtain net brake torque for each cylinder. Costly and probably well outside the DIY person's ability.

So your choice maybe to stick with the distributor. You get my reasoning here. It’s a slow process, one based on the engine and your ability to pay.

The same can be said and considered for the air fuel ratio. Lets say these engines will make their best power at 12.5 AFR. But with poor manifold air distribution, some cylinders may run leaner or richer. Also, these air-cooled engines will run higher head temperatures when run closer to 14.7. numbers. They need to run richer typically to run cooler. This changes the maldistribution numbers even further.

So together the individual cylinder losses due to the ignition and fueling could be costing you upwards of "20" HP. We have measured this on engines we have produced, but this number will change based on the individual engine and its parts. This could be a good reason to run EFI with individual spark and fuel timing. You could achieve a better burn in each cylinder and gain back some of the 20 HP.

Consider, if the best cylinder was to make 55 HP and the others were less with some around 45 HP and your engine makes 275 BHP, if you were to gain back 10 HP per the other 5 cylinders, your engine now makes another 50 HP.

Maybe look at these losses. At least understand them. Where are your losses and where can you gain back the lost performance.

These can be separated into different ("non") efficiencies. These are the standard ones known as Thermal, Volumetric, and Mechanical efficiencies. Do some research and find out what each one is about, what each one is comprised of and their individual contributors.

Here’s a very simple break down.

Thermal can include things like the engine’s compression ratio, cylinder head design, spark plug placement and type, any heat losses etc.

Volumetric is all about the engines ability to pump air efficiently, the Intake manifolding, the exhaust system and the camshaft parts.

Mechanical is frictional losses, any distortion in the cylinders and pistons, how round the pistons stay, the finish on the cylinders and ring tension, component weight, oil viscosity, coatings, etc.

So here are some areas to look at. What can you do within your budget to gain back some of these losses? Knowing where the losses occur is a huge start.

If you calculate the potential HP the fuel could produce you may find a theoretical number well above 1500HP. The inherent losses of the 4-cycle 2V air cooled Porsche engine could be as much as 800 HP or more. Say your engine makes 275BHP on the dyno. The difference between the actual and the theorical is now 425 HP. This is the power you lose just running the engine. This is the number you should focus on to make the engine more efficient. In the areas I have suggested, maybe you can gain back 10 HP in each, netting a gain of 30 HP. Now your engine makes 305 BHP.

These are plug numbers and not to be assumed as real. They are to use as an example of how you could look at your project in a more analytical manner. There is a lot more to each and way more detailed information that should be used and considered, but this gives you an idea of how to go about this. We often see as little as ˝ ft/lbs gain but added with all of the ˝ ft/lbs we can gain with a total of 15 ft/lbs and at the maximum RPM used this can result in a good HP gain.

I hope this has not bored you and has given you some areas to look at. Don’t get caught up in the latest craze unless you can measure and calculate a reason to do it. Don’t forget that good assembly procedures are extremely important as well. All of this is useless unless the engine is assembled correctly.
Old 01-07-2019, 10:18 AM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #55 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Discseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Miami, FL USA
Posts: 3,151
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Harvey View Post
Karl,

It's Ok to disagree. Maybe I have misunderstood what you are trying to achieve. But there seems to be some odd ideas mixed in with some good ones.

The idea of pin oiling up through the rod beam is a good one, but it is done typically for some specific reasons. One is, the pin does not run in a bushing and or the pin shows signs of galling. In your case I see it doing nothing, but costing you a lot more money. Normally, before this is done, the clearance between the pin and bushing is increased, the pin OD and or wall thickness is increased, if the pin was bending. Will it help lubricate the pin better, sure it will, but will it lower any friction with the added oiling. If there is no issue with galling now, I suspect almost zero change. DLC the pins will help here.

You have also asked about using surface gap spark plugs. Again, it seems you have found these to be an attractive choice because they maybe different, but understand their use too. Typically, they are used in highly boosted engines with very close piston to plug clearances. In a 2V Porsche engine with huge chamber volumes and cantered plugs, they should be last choice of plug to use. These also run the coldest with the center electrode pulled all the way back into the shell. It takes a lot of energy to fire these compared to a standard firing end plug, and the throttle response always suffers with these plugs. They are designed for a specific use and your application is probably not it.

My suggestion to take a more analytical approach, is one that will show you where to focus your attention. Not just about torque production, but where you can raise the efficiencies lost in just turning the engine over. You can separate all the losses into their own categories and soon see where you are losing power.

It’s an easy mathematical exercise to calculate the HP the fuel used can produce. This is where the chemical potential turns into a theorical mechanical HP number. Now you can subtract all the losses and come up with what the actual “net” performance could be.

I won’t use the actual numbers here (don't know your fuel type etc,) but will use some plug numbers to give you some idea of what I am suggesting.

These engines are not the best engines for efficiency either. They make approximately 30% of what their total efficiency could be due to old age and design.

Consider your engine as 6 individual cylinders. I know for sure that these engines, street or the most modified race version do not produce the same torque in each cylinder. This is due to maldistribution in the Intake system, thermal issues with the #2 and #5 cylinders “siamesed” between the other end cylinders, among many other factors. These engines have a distributor typically and the spark timing is adjusted and sent to each cylinder at the same crankshaft degree. This is what can be said to be, global timing.

In your case unless you are using some sort of individual Ignition timing per cylinder, say your total timing advance may be set at 32 degrees. But the end cylinders may make their peak power at 28 degrees. Not every cylinder will make its best torque at 32 degrees. So here is your first loss of performance. Should you stick with the distributor or go with some sort of EFI system?

You are not hot rodding your engine here, just making it more efficient. Is this not the task at hand? But you will need to measure the cylinder pressure in each cylinder at a measured crank angle and calculate the torque based upon the pressure and subtract 1/6 of the frictional losses to obtain net brake torque for each cylinder. Costly and probably well outside the DIY person's ability.

So your choice maybe to stick with the distributor. You get my reasoning here. It’s a slow process, one based on the engine and your ability to pay.

The same can be said and considered for the air fuel ratio. Lets say these engines will make their best power at 12.5 AFR. But with poor manifold air distribution, some cylinders may run leaner or richer. Also, these air-cooled engines will run higher head temperatures when run closer to 14.7. numbers. They need to run richer typically to run cooler. This changes the maldistribution numbers even further.

So together the individual cylinder losses due to the ignition and fueling could be costing you upwards of "20" HP. We have measured this on engines we have produced, but this number will change based on the individual engine and its parts. This could be a good reason to run EFI with individual spark and fuel timing. You could achieve a better burn in each cylinder and gain back some of the 20 HP.

Consider, if the best cylinder was to make 55 HP and the others were less with some around 45 HP and your engine makes 275 BHP, if you were to gain back 10 HP per the other 5 cylinders, your engine now makes another 50 HP.

Maybe look at these losses. At least understand them. Where are your losses and where can you gain back the lost performance.

These can be separated into different ("non") efficiencies. These are the standard ones known as Thermal, Volumetric, and Mechanical efficiencies. Do some research and find out what each one is about, what each one is comprised of and their individual contributors.

Here’s a very simple break down.

Thermal can include things like the engine’s compression ratio, cylinder head design, spark plug placement and type, any heat losses etc.

Volumetric is all about the engines ability to pump air efficiently, the Intake manifolding, the exhaust system and the camshaft parts.

Mechanical is frictional losses, any distortion in the cylinders and pistons, how round the pistons stay, the finish on the cylinders and ring tension, component weight, oil viscosity, coatings, etc.

So here are some areas to look at. What can you do within your budget to gain back some of these losses? Knowing where the losses occur is a huge start.

If you calculate the potential HP the fuel could produce you may find a theoretical number well above 1500HP. The inherent losses of the 4-cycle 2V air cooled Porsche engine could be as much as 800 HP or more. Say your engine makes 275BHP on the dyno. The difference between the actual and the theorical is now 425 HP. This is the power you lose just running the engine. This is the number you should focus on to make the engine more efficient. In the areas I have suggested, maybe you can gain back 10 HP in each, netting a gain of 30 HP. Now your engine makes 305 BHP.

These are plug numbers and not to be assumed as real. They are to use as an example of how you could look at your project in a more analytical manner. There is a lot more to each and way more detailed information that should be used and considered, but this gives you an idea of how to go about this. We often see as little as ˝ ft/lbs gain but added with all of the ˝ ft/lbs we can gain with a total of 15 ft/lbs and at the maximum RPM used this can result in a good HP gain.

I hope this has not bored you and has given you some areas to look at. Don’t get caught up in the latest craze unless you can measure and calculate a reason to do it. Don’t forget that good assembly procedures are extremely important as well. All of this is useless unless the engine is assembled correctly.
All your input is appreciated Neil... especially your perspective on looking at the trinity of non-efficiencies. I'm all over that. You've still got my goat on pin oiling. Cost aside for rod boring, am curious that you decisively hold forcing oil between the pin & boss being inconsequential for an endurance built engine. Since we agree that disagreeing is OK... it's a fine contrast we have. That said, there's now a fire in my belly to speak with Carillo about this build's intent and hear them out on forcing oil to the pins & bosses. Will get cost for same. If there's the slightest tint of them upselling for the upsell only... I'll attempt to sort that out. Whatever comes of that discussion... it will be posted.

There is a plan to incorporate EFI and EDIS. Am now wondering if individual cylinder timing can be controlled? And how to determine what the individual timing settings should be? I do not plan to go with individual throttle bodies but that seems a more interesting direction than it did a while ago.

Am amazed that with all the material sciences and technology available that engines loose so much energy just running.

No boredom here Neil. Your comments were read a few times with zest. Am moving forward with new perspectives & clarity. Thank you for this input!
__________________
Karl ~

Current: '80 Silver Targa w /'85 3.2
Prior: '77 Copper 924. '73 Black 914. '74 White Carrera. '79 Silver 930. '79 Black 930. '79 Anthracite 930.
Old 01-07-2019, 05:36 PM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #56 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Discseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Miami, FL USA
Posts: 3,151
Garage
Spoke with Carillo re forced pin lubrication. Cost per rod bore is $90. There's value in terms of added lubrication but downside for this particular build---which seeks to reduce reciprocating and rotating masses---rods would need to have mass added in order to accommodate bore. Richard estimated 25-30 grams per custom rod.

Thought about it and am going with weight reduction rather than forced pin lubrication.

.
__________________
Karl ~

Current: '80 Silver Targa w /'85 3.2
Prior: '77 Copper 924. '73 Black 914. '74 White Carrera. '79 Silver 930. '79 Black 930. '79 Anthracite 930.

Last edited by Discseven; 01-11-2019 at 01:33 AM.. Reason: Thought about it...
Old 01-08-2019, 08:26 AM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #57 (permalink)
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

 


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:06 PM.


 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page
 

DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.